A153 – Seconding Amendment Watch

This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
A153 – Seconding Amendment
Proposed by: Nigel Farage MEP MP (UKIP)
Seconded by: adam9317 MP (Con), hazzer1998 MP (UKIP), The Definite Article MP (Soc), Unown Uzer MP (UKIP)

Amendment to the Guidance Document

9.2 of the Guidance Document shall be changed from

9.2.can be submitted by:

9.2.1.the Speaker, or any MP
9.2.2. A non-MP when seconded by one MP.

9.3.will be laid out in the format and following the timings given in the guiding document

9.4. to parts of the Guidance Document stated as being binding in the Constitution will be passed if double the number of MPs vote Aye than the number of MPs who voted No.

9.5. to parts of the Guidance Document not stated as being binding in the Constitution will be passed if more MPs vote Aye than No.

9.5. to the constitution will be passed if twice as many MPs vote Aye as No


Changes made

This amendment makes two changes to the Guidance Document

1. Removes the need for an amendment to be seconded by lots of MPs. The requirement to have MPs as seconders is bureaucratic, slowing things down, or creates a situation where an MP uses the names of MPs who will second anything to start the debate.

2. Changes the voting requirements needed for things to pass, if something is required by the Constitution it is fair the voting requirement to change a binding part of the Guidance Document is the same as the requirement to change the Constitution. The Guidance Document contains things that should be in the Constitution, and the Constitution contains things that should be in the Guidance Document.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
The formatting is awful, the new and original text should always be in quotes for ease of submission and reading.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
Why involve non-MPs in the business of the House? Surely just have a requirement for a proposer and a seconder, perhaps of two different parties, or one being an independent MP? I don't want those expelled from the House or who lose their seat for lack of voting to be able to propose such amendments. Non MPs can submit petitions if they wish but should not be changing the rules of the House.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
(Original post by Aph)
The formatting is awful, the new and original text should always be in quotes for ease of submission and reading.
I agree, I have made a mistake with this amendment because the original text is not in the amendment; the original text will be added for a second reading.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
Given that at least the latter has been rejected on its own was rejected I expect this will be too, as for removing seconders, it's bureaucratic but reduces the chances of amendment spams.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by barnetlad)
Why involve non-MPs in the business of the House? Surely just have a requirement for a proposer and a seconder, perhaps of two different parties, or one being an independent MP? I don't want those expelled from the House or who lose their seat for lack of voting to be able to propose such amendments. Non MPs can submit petitions if they wish but should not be changing the rules of the House.
I agree, but the current text in the Guidance Document allows non-MPs to submit amendments if MPs second the amendment.
0
cranbrook_aspie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
No. The seconding requirement is there for the good reason of preventing stupid amendments from being debated. We do too much navel-gazing as it is, so if anything, it should be strengthened, not weakened.
0
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by Aph)
The formatting is awful, the new and original text should always be in quotes for ease of submission and reading.
No it shouldn't, it's an absolute nightmare to copy across. Please use a different font or colour or something, never quotes!
0
Saoirse:3
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
Nay - the rule is there for a reason, because amendments should enjoy genuine cross-house support rather than be pushed through by one side or another. If anything I would strengthen it - e.g. by requireing at least one seconder from the other side of the House and/or taking all seconders as automatic Aye votes in Division.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
No it shouldn't, it's an absolute nightmare to copy across. Please use a different font or colour or something, never quotes!
If you copy the text from the reply box there shouldn't be an issue though?
0
cBay
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
(Original post by Aph)
If you copy the text from the reply box there shouldn't be an issue though?
When you reply to something, it removes quotes.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
(Original post by cBay)
When you reply to something, it removes quotes.
No... You can copy text including the BB code.
0
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by Aph)
If you copy the text from the reply box there shouldn't be an issue though?
No... You can copy text including the BB code.
It deletes quotes even if you copy the BB code (and you'd be mad not to copy it that way).
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
It deletes quotes even if you copy the BB code (and you'd be mad not to copy it that way).
It shouldn't... I can do it fine
0
cBay
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by Aph)
It shouldn't... I can do it fine
Like when I quote you here.. your quote of fez isn't included in my quote.

So when Fez quotes something to get the BB code, the previous quotes disappear.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
(Original post by cBay)
Like when I quote you here.. your quote of fez isn't included in my quote.

So when Fez quotes something to get the BB code, the previous quotes disappear.
Ohhhh yeah, I get what you mean... Perhaps sending it in noparse tags.
0
thehistorybore
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
Nay.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
(Original post by Saoirse:3)
Nay - the rule is there for a reason, because amendments should enjoy genuine cross-house support rather than be pushed through by one side or another. If anything I would strengthen it - e.g. by requireing at least one seconder from the other side of the House and/or taking all seconders as automatic Aye votes in Division.
Is this not done effectively enough by requiring a majority in Division?

Aye, though I would like to see the requirement for a seconder from another party retained.
0
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#19
This amendment is in cessation.
0
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#20
This amendment has been withdrawn.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (128)
17.9%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (73)
10.21%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (123)
17.2%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (103)
14.41%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (70)
9.79%
How can I be the best version of myself? (218)
30.49%

Watched Threads

View All